Why Would God Hide?

[Mudhammam]

Today my brother wrote to me, "For example, a 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicated that the non-religious make up about 14.7% of the world's population, and that atheists make up around 3.8%. Another survey attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica found that the population of atheists made up only 2.4% of the world's population. According to an important study published at the University of Cambridge in 2005, 88% of the world's population believed in god's existence. We have considerable data suggesting to the contrary of the assumption of the argument in that most people would deny that there even is a Problem of Divine Hiddenness. Any reasonable contemplative nonbeliever should be candid about the apparent vastly superior Problem of Divine Revealedness.

Hear that believers and fellow heathens? God has revealed himself too damn much!

[The Valkyrie]

Today my brother wrote to me, "For example, a 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicated that the non-religious make up about 14.7% of the world's population, and that atheists make up around 3.8%. Another survey attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica found that the population of atheists made up only 2.4% of the world's population. According to an important study published at the University of Cambridge in 2005, 88% of the world's population believed in god's existence. We have considerable data suggesting to the contrary of the assumption of the argument in that most people would deny that there even is a Problem of Divine Hiddenness. Any reasonable contemplative nonbeliever should be candid about the apparent vastly superior Problem of Divine Revealedness.

Hear that believers and fellow heathens? God has revealed himself too damn much!

Explains the giant cock hanging from the sky . . .

[Esquilax]

It's a bald assertion, is what it is. Especially since, in real terms, we know that consciousness does not come from consciousness: a developing infant gains consciousness over time, from the non-conscious matter that forms them.

Moreover, you could artificially inseminate a brain dead woman using the semen from a brain dead man, and still get a pregnancy. Consciousness simply is not required in the development of consciousness. Your inferential relationship is nothing more than wishful thinking that you pulled out of your ass.

what the hell was that? would have to conclude you have descended into madness.

I'm not saying one should do that, but it's a simple, eminently possible formulation that demonstrates the incorrectness of your position. But please, continue to dodge out of the way and ignore everything that might hold you accountable to the flaws in your own argumentation, as though covering your ears is the same thing as any kind of refutation.

[Cyberman]

Indeed my secret must be so closely guarded that even I haven't got the faintest clue what you're dribbling about.

No change there, then.

well hypothetically let say mid-way thru the universe’s timeline around 6 bya, nothing but rocks, then suddenly there was a thought. From a naturalistic point of view that would seem to be the highlight moment so far. Just what was that thought (speculation) or is the secret still secured ?

In other words, you've wrapped up a ridiculous question in a very shoddy strawman, in order to profess triumphant victory when it can't be addressed let alone answered? That to you would be acceptable and rational inquiry? That's reasonable discourse to you?

I'm emailing PotHoler54 and nominating you for this year's QQOQQ; the Defiance In Ignorance Prize awarded for the dumbest question asked in the arrogant belief that there is no possible answer.

[Tonus]

I believe that god hiding would have alot to do with our "free will" or possibly incapacity to show himself more evidently, also, would it really be a positive thing to god to show himself?

Yeah, I'm thinking that the "incapacity to show himself more evidently" is probably on track. Or to be more precise, his inability to show himself at all.

Would it be a positive thing for him to show himself? That depends. Would we be able to lynch him for making such an embarrassing mess of everything?

[Esquilax]

Today my brother wrote to me, "For example, a 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicated that the non-religious make up about 14.7% of the world's population, and that atheists make up around 3.8%. Another survey attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica found that the population of atheists made up only 2.4% of the world's population. According to an important study published at the University of Cambridge in 2005, 88% of the world's population believed in god's existence. We have considerable data suggesting to the contrary of the assumption of the argument in that most people would deny that there even is a Problem of Divine Hiddenness. Any reasonable contemplative nonbeliever should be candid about the apparent vastly superior Problem of Divine Revealedness.

Hear that believers and fellow heathens? God has revealed himself too damn much!

Fuckin' hell, the second to last sentence in that quote is over-complicated something awful. That's a lot of words to get to a simple argument from popularity, and a drastic misinterpretation of what the problem of divine hiddenness is even looking for.

Incidentally Pickup, since your brother believes this to be the case, is he at all concerned about the Problem of Divine Contradiction that rears its head if he's willing to just use belief in god in general as his yardstick? I mean, it's not like any of those religions, and denominations thereof, can even agree on the basics of what that god is, like his name, so...

[Thumpalumpacus]

It seems to me that this god thingamabob would be well-treated with a variant of Fermi's Paradox.

[snowtracks]

well hypothetically let say mid-way thru the universe’s timeline around 6 bya, nothing but rocks, then suddenly there was a thought. From a naturalistic point of view that would seem to be the highlight moment so far. Just what was that thought (speculation) or is the secret still secured ?

In other words, you've wrapped up a ridiculous question in a very shoddy strawman, in order to profess triumphant victory when it can't be addressed let alone answered? That to you would be acceptable and rational inquiry? That's reasonable discourse to you?

I'm emailing PotHoler54 and nominating you for this year's QQOQQ; the Defiance In Ignorance Prize awarded for the dumbest question asked in the arrogant belief that there is no possible answer.

well okay, but you didn’t handle that question very well. obviously it was a stumper question and as such you were expected to answer it humorously (rather than going hyper-mode, do atheists have a persecution complex generally?); or address the underlining issue which is: from a naturalistic model, after billions of years, there was a first thought supposedly from a first brain, and for the first time awareness, information, consciousness, and that’s a big deal compared to a quantum vacuum source originating an universe bubble which is a simple physical to physical conversion.

[Esquilax]

well okay, but you didn’t handle that question very well. obviously it was a stumper question and as such you were expected to answer it humorously (rather than going hyper-mode, do atheists have a persecution complex generally?); or address the underlining issue which is: from a naturalistic model, after billions of years, there was a first thought supposedly from a first brain, and for the first time awareness, information, consciousness, and that’s a big deal compared to a quantum vacuum source originating an universe bubble which a simple physical to physical conversion.

It has been suggested to you before, by me, the last time you cooked up a strawman like this, that consciousness could arise gradually via evolution, and that there isn't some hard, dividing line that separates conscious, self aware and sentient entities from the non-conscious and sapient, but rather a continuum. Since this has happened before, repeating this crap and claiming that nobody has been able to answer you, makes you a filthy fucking liar.

Not that we needed any more reason not to take you seriously, but it's good that you keep giving us such brilliant reminders of the utter vapidity and moral bankruptcy of your bizarre and incoherent position.

[Bad Wolf]

well okay, but you didn’t handle that question very well. obviously it was a stumper question and as such you were expected to answer it humorously (rather than going hyper-mode, do atheists have a persecution complex generally?);

It isn't a persecution complex if you are actually persecuted